hardware agnostic?

[Muzer]

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Rashkae wrote:
>
>   
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I'm not convinced of that - and Scott's info about what he's doing
>>> suggests
>>> otherwise.  hot-plugging everything as late as possible shortens the boot
>>> time.
>>>       
>> You would be shocked at how fast some of my old servers for which I
>> compiled kernels boot... We're talking about hardware over 10 years old
>> and it puts any modern desktop with ubuntu installed to shame.  System
>> boots and is at a log in prompt before my desktop has even finished with
>> intitramfs.
>>     
>
> I wouldn't be _shocked_, but I mean that Scott's plans, heavily dependent on 
> udev, involve simply _not_ loading any software that is not required to get 
> X up and running.  Everything's geared to making X start as fast as 
> possible.  So while you might be able to achieve the same thing by compiling 
> a kernel for specific hardware, you can make it _look_ as if everything is 
> loaded just as fast by waiting for the really intensive applications to 
> settle down before you load other things.  I guess I really wasn't "not 
> convinced" that you could speed up boot by compiling the kernel, but that I 
> wasn't convinced it was either the only, or necessarily even the best, way.
>   
>> Alas, I have discovered with age and wisdom, after having gone through
>> "look how leet my fast booting linux boxes are" phase, that having
>> systems (and backps thereof) which can be ported to any hardware
>> 'agnosticly' on a moments notice trumps boot time.
>>     
>
> LOL.  Even on my development system, there's much to be said for running 
> certain services as VMs - for exactly the same reason.
>   
He says "end of bootup" is when both CPU and I/O is idle.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/CM/IT d>++ s+:- a---- C+++ UL+++>++++ P+>+++ L+++>+++++ E---->--- W+++ N o? K? w--- O+ M-- V- PS PE? Y-- PGP- t+ 5? X- R-- tv+ b++ DI D G++ e- h! !r y 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------